A new sheriff in town
The world now knows that when it comes to America, it is dealing no longer with an indecisive community organizer, but with a proved business leader who will not dither when bad guys act badly whither. Our new president just put those bad guys in Syria, North Korea, and Iran on notice that they are definitely screwing around with a different brand of cat from that puss in shorts who played games with little white balls while the real world turned and too frequently burned.
To say that Donald Trump hammered home his message is a bit inadequate when one considers the hammering of several dozen cruise missiles upon the very site from which the Syrian government stores and launches (in crude fashion) the chemical weapons it uses upon its own populace. Bashar Assad thought he was dealing with a new American president beset with many domestic problems, and likely Bashar felt he could test the limits of chemical warfare without too much fear of serious blowback.
But blowback he got, in the form of several thousand pounds of high explosives directed at his means of inflicting chemical attacks on his own people. This writing is an early response, so I have no idea as to the extent of damage inflicted on the targeted airbase, but that is immaterial. What matters is that President Donald Trump reminded the world that America is once again a geopolitical force to be factored into all military planning and all political treachery, especially within the hotbed of religious and political upheaval that is the current Middle East.
What is particularly courageous in Trump’s action is his willingness to accept the risk of Russian casualties from the missile attacks and the consequences that could devolve from that hazardous probability. Yet he was not deterred by that possibility, as was his pusillanimous predecessor, whose skill set was geared more to drawing meaningless red lines than actually being a world leader.
The libs will no doubt scream that this was a reckless endangerment of our place in the world. Let them scream; let them whimper; let them finally collapse in tears when they see the rest of the world respond positively to an actual American leader, a true world leader, who has that singular quality to lead that their guy was lacking in spades: balls.
There’s a new sheriff in town.
Crossposted at American Thinker
Category: Politics
Also Neil Gorsuch was just confirmed by majority vote to the Supreme Court
Yeah!
I was thinking earlier how Justice Gorsuch’s confirmation over the temper tantrums of the Dem0crats in conjunction with President Trump’s response to Syria give the current Administration back-to-back wins in a manner that illuminates the feebleness of the Dem0crats and what’s-his-name.
I fully expect, therefore, that the MSM will either bury the stories or spin them like a top.
Vote was 54 to 45.
I only have 2 words to say…..”BRAVO TRUMP”!!
Today is full of win!
It’s funny how many people’s heads are exploding right now because he took action that needed to be taken. I think the days of the US just wringing our hands is coming to a long overdue end.
Ah, hell, if there is no action taken they all whine “but we must DO something!” Then when someone actually goes and does something, they whine more. Their real complaint is not with the decision, but that they had no hand in making it.
That being said, I’m all for us supporting the good guys there. Now if someone could just tell me who, and why, the good guys are, I’d be truly content.
Exactly. Democrap fuckers only care about the “optics”. Just remember their fucking hypocritical and treasonous behavior after if became apparent that President Bush’s response to 9/11 would be a “win” for America. They then expended all effort to undermine the troops THEY sent into combat. Will never forget the pictures of piglosi and that muslim piece of shit from MN kissing the ass of the Syrian thug while our best and bravest were in harms way.
Like you, I have no idea the who/why in this debacle. Just more of the shit sandwich the little jug eared bitch created at the behest of his puppet master soros. That fucker needs killing bad.
Soros, not the jug eared bitch. Just wanted to clarify so I don’t get banned 🙂
Yeh or maybe every freaking thing you post will be moderated…LIKE MINE!!
And you will continue to be moderated as long as you think racism is hilarious. I deal with enough bullshit, I don’t need to hear your racist shit read to me in a courtroom. In fact you’re lucky you’re only moderated. Some of your crap made me want to completely ban you the first couple of times.
Assad is definitely a bad guy. Think of Syria as sort of the exact opposite of Iraq in the Saddam days. Iraq was a Shia country with a despotic Sunni leader, while Syria is a Sunni country with a despotic Shia leader. THat’s why the Iranians like him.
However, his enemies are also bad guys. The Syrian rebels are a collection of various factions, but most of them are Sunni and pro ISIS or at least ISIS sympathizers.
So, degrading Assad actually supports the rebels, which sort of supports ISIS.
The other problem is that SLCMs aren’t cheap. We just spent a few million dollars to blow up some old buildings, a bunch of tents, and a few outmoded aircraft.
At least it pisses the Russians and Iranians off, which isn’t bad for a day’s work.
I agree that there are no “good guys” and would prefer we let them destroy each other without our interference. Unfortunately that isn’t an option. As for cost of the strike, it’s a pittance compared to what we’ll spend in blood and treasure if President Trump doesn’t establish his willingness to act decisively when necessary. This is a message to all our enemies. Worth the cost in my opinion.
I’m not trying to compare the cost of a missile to a human life. I’m saying that this is probably the beginning of more active US involvement there, and I think you have to be prepared for more actions, to include potential ground troops (if we really want to win). McMaster (who is not only a strategic genius but also a fairly straight shooter) seems to be saying the same thing, by the way. The cost of the missiles and the number in our inventory is an issue we have to consider. This can’t be our only response in the long run, for two big reason: First, there is such a thing as ‘combat calculus’. It is the math behind the science of war (I know, Sun Tzu said war is an art. However, if you get the science wrong you’ll never get to the art part). For instance, in a direct fire engagement against an armored force, you have to figure out how many of what type of rounds you will need to destroy or disable enough tanks and AFVs to defeat the enemy. You only have so many TOWs… SLCMs are a phenomenally expensive way to take down an airfield, and we only have so many of them. We’ll want a few left to sink Russian ships and take our nKPA artillery and missile sites as well. Second, missile strikes and bombing doesn’t really have the deterrent effect that everyone thinks it has- we learned this in Vietnam, the Balkans, and even in the Gulf War. You have to actually destroy an enemies capability for bombing to be effective in the long run. I know we destroyed the airfield; the question is how badly did we degrade Assad’s ability to use WMD? How many planes, pilots, and munitions did we actually destroy? McMaster said the effect was limited: “National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster told reporters late on Thursday night that the strike was limited, and Syria is still capable of carrying out sarin gas attacks, like it did on Tuesday.” http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/us-strikes-syria-response-chemical-attack.html So, I think this is the first… Read more »
Action needed to be taken is against Iran. All this did was show the US political leadership will only take action regarding a non foe with the inability to strike back what so ever to help a bunch of Islamists. If you think our real enemies are scared over this you’re a huge fool. Syria is so far down in the list of legitimate national security interests from actions they’ve taken its hilarious. Now we have the typical cuckservatives, neo cons, and wet noodle Moonbats praising this action and it’s not a positive.
It’s all proxy. But don’t underestimate the message that was sent worldwide.
1, the US WILL NOt sit by any longer and do nothing
2, cicvilians, or anyone for that matter, will not have chemical weapons used on them without a REaction.
3, it would seem that the new Administration IS NOT “in bed” with the Russians as the MSM and Dems would have us believe.
I think that there is a lot of positives coming from this. A lot more than sitting around doing nothing except a lot of talk with no follow through like the last admin.
I would not want to be on the receiving end of that barrage.
There’s a plan afoot to make ’em even nastier by vaporizing unexpended fuel, creating a Fuel-Air Explosive (FAE) in addition to the existing warhead.
BIG boom!
Warms the cockles of my heart to see our Navy performing its real and fundamental mission: putting hot lead on hostile targets.
That’s not a plan… (G)
And to think there are some 18 year old boys on that ship who are now certain they they are MEN!
By pushing a few buttons and bombing someone miles away? ok….
Oh, my! 4th of July comes early this year?
President Reagan made Qadaffi our bitch and snitch in the Middle East until Camel Thighs & Obama wanted regime change in Libya.
What do you have against camels ?
Geezo Pete, AW1Ed. Please don’t hold back. That was so mild on your part.
Well, nuts. I mean POETROOPER. POETROOPER. POETROOPER.
My bad.
No harm no foul, Ex.
BEETLEJUICE! BEETLEJUICE! BEETLEJUICE!
Bloody Mary! Bloody Mary! Bloody Mary!
Good movie.
Yep. The news this morning is quite like the correct punctuation mark at the end of a well constructed sentence.
New sheriff? True enough….
Effective sheriff? It remains to be seen…
It will hard to be worse than Obama for certain. I remain unconvinced we have any long range plans beyond regime change in Syria….
I learned long ago, VOV, that it’s generally best to deal with the gator closest to the canoe first, and work out from there.
I don’t disagree…
Let me know when we start unleashing Tomahawks on Mexico then….
Lets give the wall a chance first. And shitcan NAFTA.
♫ ♫ ♫”All we are sayinnnng… is give the wall a chance…!” ♫ ♫ ♫
John and Yoko are humming along wrapped in white bed sheets and smoking some left-handed cigarettes…
LOL
Yeah, how has that regime change worked for us in the Arab World so far?
Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
So let’s sing a song of cheer again
Happy days are here again
Finally someone who has a set. Get some, Donald …
Brian Williams is being ravaged by the liberal pussies for making the following statement:
“Brian Williams: Images of US airstrikes on Syria are ‘beautiful'”
If Puss-N-Boots, the former occupant of my house had conducted the strike, the liberal whores would be happy as larks. But, no, a real man with real stones did it so it is not acceptable to the pussies.
Brian Williams got it right. Finally …
Blind squirrel. Nut.
One-In-A-Row
Well hell, he was there wasn’t he?
Good Training!
Ah, oops!
‘Susan Rice and other former Obama administration officials are taking heat for past claims that their 2013 Syria agreement successfully led to the Assad regime purging its entire chemical weapons stockpile — in the wake of this week’s alleged sarin gas attack.
“There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and ignored the urging of the U.N. Security Council,” Trump said.
During an interview this past January with National Public Radio, former National Security Adviser Rice touted the “success” in Syria, in striking a deal with Russia’s help that resulted in the prior administration dropping the threat of military action.
“We were able to find a solution that didn’t necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria, in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished,” she boasted. “We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.”’
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/07/susan-rice-obama-colleagues-take-heat-for-past-claims-on-syria-chemical-weapons-purge.html
Looosey, ju gots some ‘splainin’ ta do!
Instead of “new sheriff,” perhaps the better refrain may be “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
There doesn’t seem to be a legal justification for this attack. That’s a problem and it should be a problem to all those who claim that Obama ran around violating the law and the Constitution.
A sheriff should be accountable to the law which he is charged to uphold. Did that happen here? Not that I can see. I am certainly willing to change my mind but as of right now I don’t see it.
This was an act of war initiated without Congress. (Interesting how the US warned the Russians but did not inform Congress.)
If people want to cheer for the action on some sort of moral grounds or finally having a president willing to act, that’s fine by me. It doesn’t take away that we expect – and should demand – that an elected President act within the laws and the Constitution he (or she) swore to uphold.
The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president’s power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, “statutory authorization,” or in case of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.
Congress knows now, so I think President Trump met and/or exceeded the 48 hour notification window 🙂 And since we have HAD troops on the ground and in the air for quite a while now, the point is moot. Congress did NOTHING when the jug eared bitch took out muammar gaddafi, and used the embassy in Benghazi to funnel arms to what is now ISIS in Syria in a lame ass attempt to take out Assad. WHY was that done? Thereafter, it was nothing but stop or I’ll say stop again. In the mean time, thousands of people have been killed and displaced precipitating the muslim invasion of Europe. Their blood and the blood of Europeans being slaughter in the streets of Europe (see Sweden TODAY), is on HIS and lame ass poseurs in Congress hands, not President Trumps.
Thanks, MSgt.
I was hoping that someone would have access to the chapter and verse.
I know (even if Rand Paul didn’t) that so far President Trump is acting within his Constitutionally granted authorities as the President of the United States.
The War Powers Act was designed as a check-and-balance to that authority, and it appears a fairly reasonable law. But it does not stop the President from ordering military action when he deems it necessary.
MSgt (ret), USAF,
I appreciate your cordial reply.
Your citation from Wikipedia shows the problem that I, and others, are having.
The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, “statutory authorization,” or in case of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
There was no declaration of war by Congress. There was and is no “statutory authorization.” There is no “national emergency” either.
While I suspect that Trump will make a formal report to Congress within a time frame and is, in fact, meeting with Congressional leaders today on the strike, that’s not the concern. The concern is “using what authority did President Trump authorize an act of war against another country?”
Far from supporting Trump’s actions, the War Powers Act seems to show he violated that law as well.
If “sheriffs” are above the law, then the law has no purpose.
Yes, but you’re missing this part, Gitarcarver:
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.
…WITHOUT a Congressional authorization…. AUMF or a declaration of war….
What Trump did is certainly similar to Reagan’s ordering of a bombing strike against Libya in return for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988. The War Powers Act was passed in 1973, fifteen years ahead of the Lockerbie bombing and 44 years ahead of the missile strike on the Sharyat Air Base.
Reagan held a press conference to tell the media that something was underway but that he was not at liberty to go into details.
Trump’s order for a missile strike on the Sharyat base is a one-off, not a war.
Ex-PH2 ,
I am not missing the notification part as well as it is basically irrelevant at this time. The question is not the notification, but the action itself. The War Powers Act doesn’t seem to support the basis of the action.
As for PanAm 103, there were American citizens on that flight. The attack on the aircraft was a direct attack on the US. As there were American’s attack, that fit the use of force under the War Powers Act. That’s not the case in the Tuesday gassing in Syria.
Carver, you are conveniently overlooking the reality that there are American troops on the ground fighting alongside the anti-Assad forces in a country where the ruling government has sworn there are absolutely NO deployable chemical weapons. The Trump Administration can easily argue that the demonstrated presence of such chemical weapons in the battle space makes a carefully measured, preemptive strike not only legally justified but a wise defensive tactic in the furtherance of force protection.
” there are American troops on the ground fighting alongside the anti-Assad forces in a country”
With Syria’s permission? So we have committed TWO acts of war. It’s a good thing Syria is so much weaker than us.
“in return for…”
Syria did not attack us or threaten us. Japan had more of an excuse for its attack on Pearl Harbor than we do for this.
This was an act of war. Fortunately for us, “might makes right”.
“Trump’s order for a missile strike on the Sharyat base is a one-off, not a war.”
A one-off? Promise? That assumes, of course, that Syria won’t respond.
I think the fact that we’ve had boots on the ground and in the air has bearing on this action. I agreed that just because the jug eared bitch violated his authority from day 1, doesn’t mean President Trump should, but to say we’ve not been engaged in Syria WITH Congressional approval is incorrect. As I stated above, they collectively stood by when gaddafi was “illegally” removed which has direct correlation to what’s going on now in Syria.
” It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, “statutory authorization,” or in case of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.””
Someone care to have a coherent response to this one? Ex-PH2: Reagan was responding to an attack on a US plane so that could be broadly stretched to fit but unilaterally bombing an airfield with no US National Interest at stake is pretty far out there.
“a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
That seems to be the relevant passage. Also, there is international law. An armed attack on another country, unless response to an attack, is an act of war. Period.
gitarcarver…
In the spirit of open dialogue:
Puhleeese, give us a friggin’ break. Remember, Obama had his pen and a phone…
It’s about time we used the Big Stick!
Doesn’t fit his worldview.
Old 1SG, US Army (retired),
Obama held no respect for the US Constitution or other laws of the land. That does not mean that Trump, or any President can or should not obey the law as well.
The idea of “he did it too!” is something that many people think is silly after the second grade.
Graybeard
My “worldview” is that we are a nation of laws, not men.
Do you agree with that? Or is it your worldview that people in power and authority can and should violate the law and the Constitution?
Saying “he did it too!” is actually a another way of saying that there is precedent for such action. And there unquestionably is.
I know. I know. So, precedent makes it right? No, not necessarily, but it well supports the legal argument, with multiple administrations now relying on it. If Congress wants to stop the unilateral use of force by the chief executive, it can have at it the old-fashioned way–by law. In the meantime, it strongly appears that Trump met the procedural requirements and he certainly used the magic words (interest of the national security of the United States’) in his formal announcement.
gitarcarver – Oh, I most assuredly agree that we were founded as, and ought to be, a nation ruled by law, and that all citizens ought to be held to the same standards of law (exceptions for the mentally impaired and similar situations, of course, being in place).
That said, prima facie the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the actions President Trump has taken, nor does the War Powers Act, if one conducts a complete and careful reading of said act.
President Trump has not instigated a new action, but has made a move in a continuing action begun by his predecessors.
The nature of the War Powers Act per http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php
It could be argued that President Trump started no new action with this reprisal, and hence doesn’t even need to notify Congress ex post facto. Although that is a moot point now. Most certainly, the naysayers notwithstanding, what President Trump has done is within his legal authority to do, and he is, indeed, maintaining himself as subject to the law.
Those who claim otherwise are blinded by their worldview or ignorance.
We are going to disagree not because of our respective worldview or ignorance, but because the War Powers Act doesn’t allow Trump to do what he did.
Celebrating an act that appears to be outside of the law because of a “new sheriff” is not what we as a country are about.
Teddy Roosevelt is smiling down about that Big Stick after the talking did nothing
I must admit that I, too, am a tad confused regarding the legal basis for the attack. If you will, put aside whether or not you agree with the action. The question I ask has nothing to do with that. Nor does it have anything to do with the War Powers Resolution in that I am not questioning Trump’s authority to initiate the attack. We can argue about the committing of troops versus the use of drone or ship-based missile strikes. I am asking what the legal basis for any action against Syria is by the US. I see none, and inasmuch as Syrians did not use their gas in Iraq, I can’t look at that UN provision I recently spotlighted somewhere on this site.
I should point out that I have no similar question about Iraq. We are there by invitation of the gov’t. I have no similar question about Afghanistan for the same reason. I am talking only about Syria. We certainly weren’t invited by Assad and the other legal basis, that Syria’s civil war is beyond the Syrian gov’t’s control and terrorists are using it to attack Iraq is a false narrative. This attack came as a direct result of the uise of a chem agent within Syria, against Syrians. Lastly, H. WideLoad Clinton called for the retaliation herself and has applauded it. That alone makes me, um, uncomfortable.
2/17 Air Cav,
As stated, I don’t see the legal authority for the action either. That’s the first of my problems. The second is that the gassing of civilians is not only against international law, but morally repugnant. In that the UN seems to be unwilling or unable to do anything, where do moral nations and people go to stop this?
Is there a point when we should allow illegal actions in a moral cause? Is there a point where we should allow illegal actions in a moral cause where Americans are not threatened?
The other issue is that I believe that even hard core liberals in the depths of their very souls would support action of some type against the murdering SOB’s that gasses the civilians. However, politically, they will not support any action because they hate this president. Shame on them for putting politics about their moral obligations..
It is my position that 1) Trump did not have the legal authority to attack Syria on Thursday night. 2) There needed to be some sort of reprisal or response from the international community on the gassing other than what was offered. 3) Lacking a response from the international community, I wish Trump had gone the legal route and launched on the basis of moral grounds.
I think you will agree that morality and legality are sometimes at odds with one another. There are moral acts that are illegal and immoral acts that are legal. With respect to the instant matter, there was no clear-cut legal basis for the missile attack. It was retaliatory and message laden. Does the absence of legal authority to act mean the act was illegal? No. Was the act prohibited by law? Arguably, yes, but there’s tremendous mitigation. Was it morally justified? Yes, if the aim was to deter future use of chemical weapons within Syria and to discourage other nations with that capability from exercising it.
Don’t forget that time-honored principal of international relations–“Might makes right”.
Since N. Korea has killed many more of its citizens than Syria, and since I think we are still in a state of war with N. Korea, why does Syria get priority?
Simple. They are weaker. Don’t give that BS about how brave and righteous we are for invading and attacking some country that can’t hit back.
We won’t attack the DPRK any time soon because they can (and probably would) use their conventional arsenal to flatten huge chunks of Seoul.
However, he real threat in Korea is not that they would prevail in a conflict, but the very real potential of a humanitarian crisis caused initially by the destruction and civilian deaths that would come with an armed conflict, and second by the inevitable collapse of the North. The people are essentially starving now; a conflict of any length would simply make it happen faster.
Ultimately our hand will be forced when they develop the ability to launch a Nuke at Hawaii or the West Coast. All joking about nuking California aside, we simply can’t have that, so I think it is a very real possibility that President Trump will have to make a very tough decision during his term- especially if he is re-elected.
That 2001 resolution authorizing use of military force was pretty broadly worded, and without an end date. As congress has repeatedly said nothing to indicate any displeasure with its use and interpretation by the executive, there is a pretty clear precedent that the Syria strike is just more of same.
If you treat it as a “letter of reprisal”, the thing is even more likely to survive any review. Note that the COnstitution does -not- limit use of force strictly to war, as the “letters of marque and reprisal” clause makes no mention whatsoever of a precursor of “war” nor does it in any way limit -who- may be authorized to reprise or “marque”.
Oops. No one ever seems to pay attention to that one.
Yes, the “war-only” purist can shout “But we lack a declaration of war!”. The reader of the actual writing on paper can say “demonstrably, it doesn’t strictly require one”, and “Congress is not using its considerable power to de-fund activities to which it objects, thus probably not objecting.”
Oops.
You may recall the prior Zer0 administration was drone-zapping people on a kill list, anywhere it chose, without any “war” declaration. Same as above, apparently.
Of course, if Congress always no-calls the actions of the Executive, any theoretical limits on Executive action become essentially moot, as we build up layer upon layer of precedent that it is “not wrong” in the eyes of Congress.
oops, the other direction. Any tool can bite the wielder.
The 2001 resolution you refer to, I think, is the one which authorized the president to use force against those deemed responsible for the 9-11 attack. On its face, this Syrian action does not appear to be in furtherance of that purpose. Regarding declarations of war, there have only been four, technically speaking, in our history. The other seven or so were actually acknowledgments by Congress that a state of war existed between the US and one or more other nations. As for the Letters of Marque, I got nothing. You are on the money regarding the failure of Congress to act IF it believes that the chief exec has violated the War Powers Resolution.
Violation of a few UN Resolutions play into this as well.
Ya had to love the Syrian UN Ambassador’s speech today – “We never had WMD, never were any in our country, but if they were, the bad guys had them, not us. Didn’t happen. No, no, no. The US is lying about all of it.”
Well, maybe the evening and graveyard shifts can examine this most interesting matter. Here’s hoping, anyway.
Ol’ Poe is just a bit irked that my premise got hijacked here in the comments by Gitarcarver’s turd-in-the-punchbowl contention that the strike was illegal. As I responded to him above, he is conveniently overlooking the reality that there are American troops on the ground fighting alongside the anti-Assad forces in a country where the ruling government has sworn there are absolutely NO deployable chemical weapons. Therefore the Trump Administration can easily argue that the demonstrated presence of such chemical weapons by their recent use in the battle space makes a carefully measured, preemptive strike not only legally justified and well within compliance with the War Powers Act, but a wise defensive tactic in the furtherance of force protection of those American troops on Syrian soil. Now, a consideration that seems to have occurred to no one here is that this recent gassing of civilians could very well have been a deliberate testing of our new president’s will by the Syrian leadership, prodded into such an act by the Russians and Iranian mullahs who are always testing our will as well as our performance capabilities. Can you think of any other reason for Assad to poke our new president in the eye with the sharp stick of chemical weapons that makes any tactical or strategic sense at all? It’s a given that new American presidents always get tested and you can bet the farm that world leaders everywhere are watching their responses and factoring those responses into their own foreign policy and military plans for the coming four years. That was the main point of my piece–that both Americans and leaders all around the world have been put on notice that this is no guy to dick around with, unlike his widely scorned (and deservedly so) predecessor. Consider this: One of the world leaders who has to be most interested in measuring the heft of Donald’s balls is that Chinese leader he was dining with while that attack was being carried out. That timing was most certainly no accident. The only thing that could have made the moment more delicious… Read more »
‘deliberate testing of our new leader’- well, of course it was. I have wondered how long it would take. Pres. Trump did say earlier this week, during his press conference with King Abdullah of Jordan, that he and Pres. Xi would be discussing what to do about North Korea and that the ‘deal’ with Iran was the worst deal he had ever seen.
Since we’ve had advisers in Syria for some time now, I don’t understand why this strike was questioned. If we did not have people in that country, would Trump have done the same thing? We’ll never know, will we?
” American troops on Syrian soil.”
Once again, who gave us permission to put those troops on Syrian soil?
I guess we should also send troops into Mexico to fight the drug lords. And what about N. Korea?
Have paid attention to any of the posts about mission creep on TAH? Obama put them there, didn’t ask permission, just sent them in small groups of a couple hundred or so, as advisers and support.
In re: Mexico, there are two states which produce nothing but drugs for the drug trade. The Mexican government won’t/can’t stop them. Maybe we should just go firebomb them?
PT. I am equally guilty of hijacking and will take my whacking, too. All of what you wrote I either take no issue with or endorse heartily. There is one question that is on point, now that we are officially off point. By what legal authority are we in Syria at all? I’m not talking about the War Powers resolution at all. I’m talking plain, old, what the hell are we doing in there? You see, my take is that the Syrians can continue their civil war until both sides destroy one another or there is a victor. As others have said here, if it’s not Assad, it will be some other iron-fisted ruler, the only type of authority too many in that neck of the woods respect. The import of the strike I get. The moral basis of the strike I get. It’s the legal basis I don’t get.
Cav, I think some clever lawyer in State or DoD could provide a tenuous nexus to the original mandates of the Great War on Terror and its legal underpinnings in the War Powers Act. That’s the best I can do and I doubt there are many in our government who could make a better SWAG right now.
Hannity is using the theme that, “The United States is Back!” I guess that pretty much sums up what I’ve been trying to say and it’s a theme that pays little attention to the legal niceties of the situation for now, all those details that can be sorted out later.
With a fairly good night’s rest behind me, I will say again that I have no objection whatsoever to the points made in your piece. I was off and running on a separate exercise that is of particular interest to me. The domestic legal basis for the strike I do not have a problem with inasmuch as there are multiple instances in which, w/o clear legal grounds, we have acted in Syria. The message sent to the world is, indeed, there’s a new sheriff in town, and I am happy that is so. I would rather other nations’ leaders think twice about the consequences of their actions, but first and foremost, I want no Americans needlessly put at risk w/o a clear mission and solid support from our allies.
“all those details that can be sorted out later.”
At Nuremburg, perhaps.
Yes indeed, “Might makes right”. I’m sure it sounds better in German or Russian.
Then there’s the whole discussion that the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional, but YMMV.
Before this ends, please remember that Obama sent an additional 250 US troops, including SpecOps personnel, to Syria in April 2016. http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/24/politics/obama-special-operations-syria/
He added another 200 in December 2016, after the fall election. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/us/politics/us-adds-200-troops-syria-isis.html?_r=0
The total number of US personnel we have over there is somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 as of November 2016.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/7/us-troop-numbers-in-iraq-syria-depend-on-isis-figh/
Whether or not the strike was ‘legal’, if it was done to send a message to all parties in Syria and protect our own, so be it.
Thank you for that, Ex-PH2. I was trying to pull it up in my mind but the wine and the spring pollen have me somewhat befuddled. Whatever the legal justification for those troops being there, there is no question we have a legal responsibility to protect them. With that questionable cur who just left the office that question of responsibility would have been just that: a question. With Trump, that question mark disappears.
This was a joke right? You can’t really believe a president that just went back on his word to the American people that is doing exactly what the establishment wants is a something new. New would have been not getting involved in yet another Muslim issue that doesn’t involve our interests. This bipolar chickenshit US military intervention policy we’ve had that is now continuing is absurd. All this shows is the president of the United States is listening to the wrong people plain and simple.
Take a look around and see who’s agreeing this is a good idea. That company never has americas best interest in mind.
The fact that Schumer and HRC agree with this move is a red flag, but I still think that there is a lot more good to come out of this than there is bad.
I can understand Trump wanting to act unilaterally. When “O” sought authorization for strikes in 2013 he was told “no” by congress. Same in 2015 when feelers went out. Like most D’s (say like Bill in 1997-8) they ask permission first to appease their base. When they don’t get it they mostly don’t act. Legally POTUS has no where to stand. There is no authorization for USF’s to conduct operations vs the Central Government of Syria. Drone strikes and counter-terror ops are authorized under the AUMF vs Al Queda (107-40 authorized OCONUS, pretty much anywhere). No one is saying that the Syria Government is linked to AQ. No threat has been shown from them to USF’s in theater. Otherwise we would be pounding the dog snot out of the Syrian Military. Politically however Trump did what was best for his party and himself possibly without even realizing it. Rather than muck up 2013/15 and have the media turn go into frenzy over the double talking weasels in congress the op is already over and done with. He also said pretty loudly: “I am not a patsy for the Russians”. HRC opened her mouth at the wrong time again for her side of the fence with an explicit endorsement prior to the attack. Politically it could not have gone better in the short run for the Trumpster. But the bigger question: Why are we there? remains… No one has made a good argument for diving into a civil war in Syria. These things can go on for a hundred years without resolution. I’ll wager that when we leave the war will still be going on or flare right up again. Any takers? Sure, Asad is an evil liar who kills civilians for sport. His replacement will likely be worse and even more brutal. That is no reason to get involved. We have no mission end state, no achievable objectives and no way to effectively influence the outcome of the war in a positive manner. Spending our kids money to kick the crap out of some dictator seems a bit futile to… Read more »
“a proved business leader who will not dither when bad guys act badly whither.”???
Your a poet and don’t know it!
Assad, maybe and that’s a big maybe, killed a few people with chemical weapons but when your very nation is being attacked by radical Islamic Terrorists and your in danger of being overthrown I guess you do what you gotta do. The fat Norktard has murdered hundreds of thousands by starving them to death. When do we nuke them? Are we now in the business of deciding the right way for murdering your own citizens and step in anywhere on the planet when we don’t like it?
I would join those who wonder just why we have troops in Syria at all. We could argue all day about that issue. It doesn’t really matter at the moment – they are there and the new sheriff just showed he has their backs.
Good.
Why do we have troops in Syria at all? Well, I think the answer is simple. Jonn’s been posting about it all along.
It’s mission creep. Remember that?
We have 5,000 to 6,000 people over there in the Middle East as advisers and support. Obama sent them. The last mission creeps were in April 2016 (250) and December 2016 (200).
Iran’s Rouhani now wants those chemical attacks investigate by an impartial party. This is after a meeting with Vlad Putin in the Kremlin. Anyone think he’s worried?
“It’s mission creep. Remember that?”
I certainly do. I also remember a lot of negative comments about it, too. Times change, I guess, along with Presidents.
Is being direct and doing a one-shot more upsetting than continuing to send in a couple hundred here and a couple hundred more there, and then lying about the whole thing for years?
“doing a one-shot”
That remains to be seen. If it was, it’s kind of pointless.
“Is being direct and doing a one-shot more upsetting…”
Nope. I am against both. What does upset me is the reflexive approval and the dubious justifications.